A lawsuit with some kick: Is this town big enough for two sneaker companies?

Brighton-based New Balance is suing soon-to-be North End-based Converse over lawsuits Converse has filed against other sneaker companies.

Converse did not name New Balance in its trademark suits and International Trade Commission complaints over the stylings of other vendors' sneakers, which Converse says is too close to its own Chuck Taylors. But New Balance launched a preemptive lawsuit to make sure Converse doesn't turn its eyelets towards its impending crosstown rival and its PF Flyers line.

A fair reading of the ITC complaint, however, reveals that Converse asserts trademark rights that, if upheld by the Commission, may improperly affect PF Flyers’ ability to compete with Converse. Equally as troubling, Converse’s ITC complaint seeks a “general exclusion order” that purports to target the named respondents, but is broadly written so as to also potentially exclude long-time legitimate competitors, such as PF Flyers.

Given the parties’ mutual standing in the athletic footwear industry and the absence of any consumer confusion between their products, New Balance reached out to Converse in an attempt to clarify and memorialize the scope of Converse’s enforcement actions as excluding PF Flyers. New Balance’s concerns with the scope of Converse’s enforcement actions were apparently well-founded. Not only did Converse refuse to carve out PF Flyers, but it threatened to amend the ITC Action to add New Balance as a respondent and to otherwise seek to enjoin the sale of PF Flyers products. Subsequent efforts to avoid this dispute have been unsuccessful.

In its complaint, New Balance, which acquired PF Flyers in 2001, says the line has been around since the 1940s (the PF stands for "Posture Foundation"). Ironically, in the 1970s, Converse bought the line, before selling it to a new sneaker company, which sold it to another company before New Balance finally bought it.

New Balance says that rather than trying to block competitors for selling sneakers with particular styling that had been around for decades before it applied for trademark protection, Converse should just concentrate on competing in the marketplace. It wants a judge to declare Converse's trademark null and that:

Converse does not have the exclusive right to use a toe bumper, toe cap, and striped midsole in connection with athletic footwear; There is no likelihood of confusion between New Balance’s use of these nonsource identifying elements and Converse’s use of the same.

Also, New Balance wants Converse to pay it for the trouble of having to bring the suit in the first place.

Complete New Balance complaint (3M PDF).